Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
It doesn't help though that they can't form any agreement in Northern Ireland after the last one fell apart over that heating payments scandal. Sin Fein wanted to remain and now would prefer some sort of whole irelend entity whereas DUP flat refuse to be separated from the rest of the UK, say if a hard border was implemented upon crossing the Irish Sea.

What's made everyone feel much more trusting towards each other is that May made a deal with the DUP in Westminster to secure power so obviously needs their support for an Irish border solution during Brexit or they'll pull the rug out from under her government. Marvellous. If the DUP get it mostly their way because they have leverage in Westminster, THAT will likely lead to troubles.

That's what I don't get about the DUP - they're not being separated from the UK, unless they can't be bothered to produce a driving licence from their pocket before hopping onto a ferry.

Another billion pounds would probably bring the DUP back on board. They need to be reminded that they won't hold the whip hand for ever, and are they seriously going to bring down May for Corbyn?

Call their bluff.

 Steve steveson wrote:
I find it interesting that the UK government and leavers have stopped talking about access to the free market, which all along they said was 100% possible and easy, where the EU said that it was linked to the 4 fundamental freedoms.

Which is a fair and valid point. But it also fair to say that it could have been achieved through negotiation and a little bit of give and take. And I think that this is one point on which both side agree, though from different viewpoints. All the proposals put forward to the EU, whether you think that they are wishful thinking or not, could have been developed via dialogue and negotiation. However it seems apparent that the EU has flat out refused to budge on any form of compromise or dialogue, so where does that leave the UK

Now you could argue that the EU is quite entitled to pursue that position as they are the ones, in your opinion, holding the whip hand. They control the market we wish to access and so "he who pays the piper names the tune". And I see no reason to argue against that. However, to say that the UK has no plan is disingenuous because the UK is pursuing a plan. Its just not acceptable to the EU.

Access to the free market is not directly linked to the 4 fundamental freedoms, it's only linked in our case for whatever reason. So the initial position of access was accurate, the EU has just linked it to another condition which the UK wasn't prepared to accept.

Do I think the talks will fail? Yes. Do I think that that is the UKs fault? No, both sides should equally take the blame for that. So where does that leave us? Heading for WTO rules and regs and an uncertain future for us all. And that then leads us to having to decide whether we are pessimists or optimists for the future and that will drive our country onwards. So do you see the dark cloud or the silver lining?

Personally I think that this will present us with opportunities to create trade deals without having to sift through the bureaucracy of 28 nations.

Having lived in an area which was gutted by the single market and common fisheries policies I see nothing good about the present day EU.

Cheers

Andrew

PS glad to see you back.

Stranger83 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Whirlwind wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:


It's odd isn't it - if I'd have said so many people in the EU were prepared to come over here and break our laws I'd be considered a racist, but when you do it it's ok and I'm a fantasist for believing it won t happen.

I don't know what has happened to you in your life that makes you think people from the EU have such disregard for the rule of law - I've always found that as a general rule respect for the law of the land is pretty high amounts people from Europe, I therefore choose yo believe that if you tell them that working here would be illegal then they simply wouldn't come and instead choose to go to a country where they are allowed to work.

You are just trying to twist the conversation now. If someone said "all citizens of the EU are criminals" then that is bigotry (not really racism, but more from interpretation). To discuss the consequences if you implement a system that encourages exploitation of the poorest regardless of where they are coming from is not bigotry or racism. There actions are only 'illegal' because of the some rather arbitrary rules about whether you were born on this or that rock that are being suggested.. That it is highlighting that rules proposed discriminate against people and are likely to hit the poorest the worst as they are both desperate enough to try and get out of that cycle. To have concerns that this will then place much greater pressures on the UK system as a whole as they will no longer contribute tot he system and potentially need more support. What we should be asking you is why you are so keen to have a system that discriminates as to whether someone can work/live/rent simply on what rock they were born on?

I'm not twisting the conversation at all - I'm pointing out that in my opinion the vast majority of people try to live within the rule of law - r-squared seems to think that this isn't the case and that if people don't like the law they will just outright ignore it, I massively disagree with this assertion.

As Whirlwind points out, if working in the UK, whether legally or illegally is attractive, people will come. If we set the system up so that it becomes illegal for migrants to work, then many will still come, but work illegally.
We then lose taxation, and the net effect of having a larger illegal working populace is that other crime will also be commited. We also have to commit greater resources to tackle illegal working etc.

However, and this is the crux of the problem with the Irish border, Whether it suits the UK or not to have a soft border, the EU would then have to rely on the UK to protect this entrance way to rest of the 27.
Whilst our current setup is aligned, once we're out of the Eu, then it could be a point of concern for those other nations.

Wait... I'm confused.

Who want's a "harder" border??? The EU?

<--- is all confused.

 whembly wrote:
Wait... I'm confused.

Who want's a "harder" border??? The EU?

<--- is all confused.

No one really, it's just likely to be a consequence of current negotiations.

 AndrewC wrote:


Which is a fair and valid point. But it also fair to say that it could have been achieved through negotiation and a little bit of give and take. And I think that this is one point on which both side agree, though from different viewpoints. All the proposals put forward to the EU, whether you think that they are wishful thinking or not, could have been developed via dialogue and negotiation. However it seems apparent that the EU has flat out refused to budge on any form of compromise or dialogue, so where does that leave the UK

Now you could argue that the EU is quite entitled to pursue that position as they are the ones, in your opinion, holding the whip hand. They control the market we wish to access and so "he who pays the piper names the tune". And I see no reason to argue against that. However, to say that the UK has no plan is disingenuous because the UK is pursuing a plan. Its just not acceptable to the EU.

The problem is that every solution the UK are submitting means that the EU has to break one of its central constitutional rights which is that people in one EU country are given different movement rights than someone else in another EU country. The EU will *never* agree to this, as I've pointed out before it would be like the UK asking the US to not allow Texans to be covered by part of US constitution whereas those in Oregon are. It simply wouldn't happen. We should see the EU rights in the same way and proposals would need to ensure that they approach all EU citizens in the same way.

Having lived in an area which was gutted by the single market and common fisheries policies I see nothing good about the present day EU.

There is a misconception that it was the EU that resulted in the issues with regards fishing as has been pointed out many times. The EU set quotas (and the UK had a very favourable one) based on scientific research as to how much fishing was sustainable. The UK government decided how to split those quotas up. In the end approx. 5 large multinational companies ended up with approx 85% of the fishing rights - these companies employed global fishing fleets. The reality is that the UK governments at the time could easily have reduced the big 5 to having 70% of the fishing rights and that would have easily resolved the problem and small one ship fishing vessels could have carried on. Why do you think the UK government didn't pursue this option?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stranger83 wrote:


Sadly I'm not going to continue to debate you, you've made it very clear that you intend to twist whatever anyone says into what you want them to say - whilst at the same time trying to claim that pulling someone up for directly saying that if you make it illegal for people from the EU to work here they will do so anyway isn't saying that you believe that people in the EU have no respect for the law.

Saying that you should pay into the system before you take out is not the same as saying kids shouldn't get health care, for the simple fact that we don't ask kids to pay into the system, the fact that you would even say this says far more about yourself than it does about leavers.

As far as making people pay before they should claim and that this is like 'an insurance ' maybe the fact it is called National INSURANCE has been lost upon you, I've bolded the key word there for you.

It was your wording not mine, your the one that stated that people shouldn't get anything until they have paid in. The concepts I introduced are just the extension of what you were saying (and lets not forget that some people do advocate that this is how the UK should work). If the extensions make you feel uncomfortable (from my perspective they should) then maybe the debate has placed a different window on your own internal views and I would suggest that rather than dismiss them as twisting what you are saying maybe you should challenge yourself and what you are saying by following these paths. You balk at the idea of a child being prevented treatment, but what about an 'illegal' migrants child, which side of the line do they fall on? You are happy to spend £0.9bn on protecting borders to prevent spending the same £0.9bn on benefits for the EU migrants (so an economic argument is invalid). The cost is the same for managing these such people; one option holds back the potential of human being just like me or you; the other provides an opportunity for them to develop and contribute to society. Yet you prefer the first, why is that?

And I am well aware of the term NI, however as you are probably well aware it is just a tax. All the monies get placed in one pot and then resplit out. NI is not ring fenced for certain aspects in the same way car tax isn't ring fenced to maintain roads. We could get rid of a lot of red tape and just remove NI completely, however it does give governments 'wriggle' room when they talk about 'tax' because a lot of people perceive it as different to what it is.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:


Which is a fair and valid point. But it also fair to say that it could have been achieved through negotiation and a little bit of give and take. And I think that this is one point on which both side agree, though from different viewpoints. All the proposals put forward to the EU, whether you think that they are wishful thinking or not, could have been developed via dialogue and negotiation. However it seems apparent that the EU has flat out refused to budge on any form of compromise or dialogue, so where does that leave the UK

Now you could argue that the EU is quite entitled to pursue that position as they are the ones, in your opinion, holding the whip hand. They control the market we wish to access and so "he who pays the piper names the tune". And I see no reason to argue against that. However, to say that the UK has no plan is disingenuous because the UK is pursuing a plan. Its just not acceptable to the EU.

The problem is that every solution the UK are submitting means that the EU has to break one of its central constitutional rights which is that people in one EU country are given different movement rights than someone else in another EU country. The EU will *never* agree to this, as I've pointed out before it would be like the UK asking the US to not allow Texans to be covered by part of US constitution whereas those in Oregon are. It simply wouldn't happen. We should see the EU rights in the same way and proposals would need to ensure that they approach all EU citizens in the same way.

Having lived in an area which was gutted by the single market and common fisheries policies I see nothing good about the present day EU.

There is a misconception that it was the EU that resulted in the issues with regards fishing as has been pointed out many times. The EU set quotas (and the UK had a very favourable one) based on scientific research as to how much fishing was sustainable. The UK government decided how to split those quotas up. In the end approx. 5 large multinational companies ended up with approx 85% of the fishing rights - these companies employed global fishing fleets. The reality is that the UK governments at the time could easily have reduced the big 5 to having 70% of the fishing rights and that would have easily resolved the problem and small one ship fishing vessels could have carried on. Why do you think the UK government didn't pursue this option?

Which is why I pointed out the route to agreement is via dialogue and not the present stalemate. As you have used American laws, do you think that it is fair that an American with a concealed carry permit be allowed to shoot a person in Spain using stand your ground defence be allowed to escape prosecution because he's allowed to do so under US law? Because that's what the EU are telling us. Each option seems as ludicrous to both parties viewpoint.

And I don't accept your assertion that the UK could have reduced the quotas of the big five, because the five as you put it leveraged the countries from which they operated to ensure that the UK proposals were consistently overruled and ignored so that they maintained their monopolies on the fishing industry. If you get a chance look up the margin by which Moray voted in the referendum. That should illustrate just how dissatisfied they were with the EU, the SNP and remember that their MP was the one directly representing Scotland at the Fisheries for a long time.

Cheers

Andrew

 whembly wrote:
Wait... I'm confused.

Who want's a "harder" border??? The EU?

<--- is all confused.

It's a perception. The EU won't compromise on some of it's constitution which allows its populaces to have the same movement rights (think of it as applying the US constitution differently in different states). However the UK proposals are suggesting just this and hence the EU are (justifiably) saying no. The implication is that unless the UK/EU agree something that there will hard borders all round. Some people are viewing this as the EU wants a hard border (they don't) because they are unwilling to amend their constitution as the EU sees that as more important than the border controls with the UK.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AndrewC wrote:


Which is why I pointed out the route to agreement is via dialogue and not the present stalemate. As you have used American laws, do you think that it is fair that an American with a concealed carry permit be allowed to shoot a person in Spain using stand your ground defence be allowed to escape prosecution because he's allowed to do so under US law? Because that's what the EU are telling us. Each option seems as ludicrous to both parties viewpoint.

The simple solution to this one is that we remain covered by the ECJ. We already are, and it rarely has a major bearing on day to day lives. TM doesn't like it because every time she wants to introduce draconian spying laws it gets knocked back. She wants to remove that thorn so you can monitor us as much as she wishes etc. I think if the EU saw us as some champions of personal freedoms it would have less of an issue but they know what the current government is like...

Except shooting someone either in the US or Spain is illegal (excusing self defence etc). What the UK is proposing is to allow some people to allow concealed weapons and some not to simply due to what piece of rock they come from.

And I don't accept your assertion that the UK could have reduced the quotas of the big five, because the five as you put it leveraged the countries from which they operated to ensure that the UK proposals were consistently overruled and ignored so that they maintained their monopolies on the fishing industry. If you get a chance look up the margin by which Moray voted in the referendum. That should illustrate just how dissatisfied they were with the EU, the SNP and remember that their MP was the one directly representing Scotland at the Fisheries for a long time.

But if those proposals were just to increase fishing unsustainably then it's not really justified, especially if the UK got a big increase because of it when it already has a very favourable allocation. The UK is the one that determines how the fishing quota is divided. The government issues the majority of the quotas to umbrella Producer Organisations (POs). This allocation has nothing to do with the EU, it is solely a UK decision how it allocates the allowance. These POs then distribute the allowances throughout their fleet. A lot gets landed at foreign ports because these POs have (or are associated with) large multinational fishing fleets. The Government never had to allocate the exceedingly high level of allowances to these POs. It was perfectly within their power to reduce them and allow more for smaller one ship fleets that would then land the catch on UK shores. The government however went the big business route. The EU is being blamed here for not increasing allowances, however are you so sure those allowances would have helped at all or just gone to the big POs again leaving places in exactly the same place?

 Whirlwind wrote:

The simple solution to this one is that we remain covered by the ECJ. We already are, and it rarely has a major bearing on day to day lives. TM doesn't like it because every time she wants to introduce draconian spying laws it gets knocked back. She wants to remove that thorn so you can monitor us as much as she wishes etc. I think if the EU saw us as some champions of personal freedoms it would have less of an issue but they know what the current government is like...

Except shooting someone either in the US or Spain is illegal (excusing self defence etc). What the UK is proposing is to allow some people to allow concealed weapons and some not to simply due to what piece of rock they come from.

Firstly I misunderstood your earlier post as to the discrimination, you were talking about the Irish situation when I was referring to the ECJ. But shooting someone in the US is justifiable under SYG, the assertion that ECJ has primacy over the UK laws is the assertion that a US citizen could shoot a Spaniard (I'm not picking on the Spanish honestly!) and claim that he is subject only to US laws and so walk free. I cannot accept the primacy of a foreign court over our own laws. Which is one of the EUs demands. And I don't know what the answer is to Ireland. The EU is right that it is unfair to treat one part differently to another, but is putting no effort into resolving the situation, creating the very imminent situation of forcing a hard brexit, which is in no ones best interest.

But if those proposals were just to increase fishing unsustainably then it's not really justified, especially if the UK got a big increase because of it when it already has a very favourable allocation. The UK is the one that determines how the fishing quota is divided. The government issues the majority of the quotas to umbrella Producer Organisations (POs). This allocation has nothing to do with the EU, it is solely a UK decision how it allocates the allowance. These POs then distribute the allowances throughout their fleet. A lot gets landed at foreign ports because these POs have (or are associated with) large multinational fishing fleets. The Government never had to allocate the exceedingly high level of allowances to these POs. It was perfectly within their power to reduce them and allow more for smaller one ship fleets that would then land the catch on UK shores. The government however went the big business route. The EU is being blamed here for not increasing allowances, however are you so sure those allowances would have helped at all or just gone to the big POs again leaving places in exactly the same place?

Before I comment on this, can you point me to any documentation relating to these POs, before attempting to refute first research!!

Cheers

Andrew

Found some reading on the POs and no I do not agree that the UK Govt is primarily responsible for the lions share going to foreign POs. A lot of the problem goes back to the original decisions which gutted the fishing fleet of smaller vessels, due to regulation and cost effectiveness which saw the UK fleets halved in size. However subsidies supporting the smaller vessels continued unchecked overseas which allowed other countries to maintain their fleet. When the EU came out with directives that the smaller ships be allocated a greater proportion of the quota, british vessels simply didn't exist to take advantage of it, but other EU countries were and so a lot of the stock then went to overseas POs. And the ability of those fleets to monopolise the industry while withholding quota from smaller operators isn't fair or right. And as far as I can see, ensuring that quotas are only given to UK fishing POs runs foul of EU rules on state aid. So as a direct result of EU rules the Government had to go the big business route. Now I am not denying that the governments at the various times may have went the same route, but the rules guided them in that direction.

Whether the withdrawl from the common fisheries would have achieved the same result as brexit, we will never know as that decision was superceded by the referendum.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Free movement for all Irish citizens for within the UK as well. It would be the easiest thing in the world to produce a valid passport or driving licence if you were travelling from Dublin to Wales, as an example.

If you need a passport or driving license to enter then it's not free movement according to how the EU defines it. If you really implemented free movement from Ireland to the UK then technically any EU citizen could hop from Ireland into the UK (or the other way around: UK <-> Ireland <-> mainland EU). But then the question would be why only tough Ireland and not any other country?

Mario wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Free movement for all Irish citizens for within the UK as well. It would be the easiest thing in the world to produce a valid passport or driving licence if you were travelling from Dublin to Wales, as an example.

If you need a passport or driving license to enter then it's not free movement according to how the EU defines it. If you really implemented free movement from Ireland to the UK then technically any EU citizen could hop from Ireland into the UK (or the other way around: UK <-> Ireland <-> mainland EU). But then the question would be why only tough Ireland and not any other country?

Well in that case we've never had proper free movement with the EU then, so what's changing?

I haven't read the last lot of posts, as frankly I'm fed up of the bile and hatred – I didn't believe nasty remainers really existed anymore, who just bleieve that anyone who voted leave is evil but thank you for proving me wrong. I could do without you in my life so I'll leave you to wollow in your pit of nastiness and believe that you are the pillar of goodness and virtue.

I am however going to tell you a story – every element of this story is true, although it's actually an amalgamation of what happened to three different people I personally know.

This story will explain to you why we leavers are opposed to the concept of 'free movement' and show that it has nothing at all to do with "RACIST", that none of you know anyone who has been affected this way by free movement says a lot about the social circles that you move in, you spend a lot of time talking about the poor and working class but I wonder if any of you have ever spoken to one of them?

Anyway, I'm going to post this then walk away – you can make up your own mind if I'm evil and a racist for not liking free movement afterwards, but I'm done with the nasty politics you try promote here.


I'm going to introduce you to Dave. Dave is a good guy, always tries to do the right thing and has no ill will to anyone. Dave was never very good at school, leaving after his GCSEs and failing to get a single subject higher than a D grade. Dave however had a single redeem skill that he know he could use to support himself – Dave was a magician with a piece of wood, he could take a plank of wood and turn it into anything you could imagine.

So, doing what was done at the time Dave left school at 16 and took an apprenticeship as a joiner. After a couple of years Dave was taken on as a full time work and over the next 10 years gradually branched out to be self employed.

Over the same 10 years Dave met his wife, had a couple of kids and everything was going smoothly, he was happy, business was doing well and he was supporting his family.

Now Dave didn't want a fancy life, but to live and support his family in the UK he needed to earn a minimum of £10 per hour, but being that humans like to do more than just live he used to charge £12 per hour – which was a reasonable rate and fairly average for the area he lived in.

Then the EU opened up membership to economies that were significantly less developed than the UK.

What then proceeded to happen is this, Dave suddenly noticed that Paul, George and Bob had all moved to the area from Eastern Europe. Paul was an electrician, George was a plumber and Bob was a joiner. They immediately started to do work at £8 per hour.

How could they charge £8 per hour? Well here is how it works. Their families stay in Eastern Europe and Paul, George and Bob send the money home. As the cost of living in Easter Europe is significantly cheaper than the UK they only need to earn £3 per hour to cover this. "Ah but Paul, George and Bob are all living in the UK" I hear you say, and this is true, but they pool their resources, rent together and can survive in the UK for £2 per hour each. This means that they only need £5 per hour to support themselves, and they are saving the remaining £3 for when they go home – which they plan to do after 1 or 2 years.

Now Dave has a problem, he is being massively undercut on his trade, he could charge the same as Bob, but then he wouldn't earn enough to support his family? What is he supposed to do?

Dave make a tough choice, he knows that Bob isn't planning to be away from his family forever, so he decided to lower his rates to the minimum he can afford and support his family. He charges £10 per hour, and just accepts that until Bob goes home he'll be unable to have a family holiday or but his kids the latest games console – it's not an idea situation but it'll do. He's fairly confident that his reputation in the area will mean he can still get enough work at £10 per hour.

Now Dave faces trouble on all counts, if he tries to explain why his rates are higher than Bobs he's simply told to 'lower his rates then' – people just don't understand why Bob can offer this cheaper than Dave. If he complains he is branded a "RACIST" and told that these people are just trying to work and they are good for the economy. Dave has no ill will towards Bob, he's just trying to provide for his family and he cannot do that on £8 per hour

Lowering his rate to £10 works a little for Dave, he loses some work but he is able to scrape by and has a miserable couple of years, but then he begins to hear the Paul, George and Bob are going home. This is good news because the cost of living in the UK is rising faster than the cost of living in Eastern Europe and the disparity between what he can charge and what Bob can charge is only going to get larger – but this isn't the end of his nightmare, because as Paul, George and Bob leave then Peter, Shane and Trevor all come over from Eastern Europe and the cycle starts again, except now people are more accepting of accepting the work from the Eastern Europeans as Bob has set their expectations that the work can be just as well as he can.

Dave clings on as best he can, but ultimately he has no choice to close his business, he is now unemployed and without any qualification is unlikely to find work again.


So what has happened to my three friends who would recognise this story immediately? Well, one of them in an ironic twist now works in Poland, where finacially he does fairly well as all the electricians have left to Western Europe. He's miserable however as he has only picked up a little bit of Polish and has constant arguments with hos wife who is desperate to return to her friends and family in the UK, but he simply cannot support them there.

One friend has managed to find work stacking shelves in a supermarket – but he earns a fraction of what he used to earn, his wife has had no choice but to also seek work, despite the fact that it had been her wish to be a stay at home mum. Both hate their jobs.

One is still unemployed and on benefits, whilst he finds temporary work when he can his lack of qualifications and advancing age (he's older than 40) means it's unlikely he'll ever find work again – he is massively depressed and ended up splitting up from his wife.

Do any of them have ill will to the people who came over and forced them out of work, not really. They understand that these people are just trying to support their family in the same way they tried to support theirs. What they hate is the system that allows this to happen, it's why I hate the system that allows this to happen and why I do not like EU style free movement.

I'd have no problem with Paul, George or Bob coming to this country, they can come sight see and travel all they want (this is free movement in the truest sense of the word). I even wouldn't mind them coming to work in the UK if it was a level playing field - which would mean them bringing their family with them (and something we could control and make a condition of any visas we choose to issue), but the current system is unfair and I think it needs to end.

I think if you actually stopped yelling "RACIST" at leavers and assuming they are the devil incarnate you would find that the vast majority would be able to tell you a very similar story.

 AndrewC wrote:

Firstly I misunderstood your earlier post as to the discrimination, you were talking about the Irish situation when I was referring to the ECJ. But shooting someone in the US is justifiable under SYG, the assertion that ECJ has primacy over the UK laws is the assertion that a US citizen could shoot a Spaniard (I'm not picking on the Spanish honestly!) and claim that he is subject only to US laws and so walk free. I cannot accept the primacy of a foreign court over our own laws. Which is one of the EUs demands.

That is misrepresenting the position quite a bit. ECJ would only would have to rule on cases of pre-acquired rights. That is those who are already living in the UK pre-Brexit so it would be relative to rights acquired under the ECJ jurisdiction.

So it's not a case of transfering laws to another country, it's not taking away rights from those who had them at some point.

@ Stranger83

Thank you for sharing that. I know of a few similar examples myself.

Stranger83 wrote:*angry rant competing for Strawman of the Year followed by an interesting subject*

You know, I don't think I've seen a single person call Ketara or DINLT racists. We disagree profusely on the issue of Brexit, sure, but that's where it stops. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

You came into the thread swinging from the get-go and couldn't handle making proper arguments. As far as I've seen no one's called you a racist either, for that matter, so you're sticking to your strawmen and unfounded generalizations to the end. Didn't you say that you cared about facts, as opposed to us "nasty remainers"? We haven't even called for the creation of concentration camps or the drowning of people in the Aegean yet, the "bile" and "hate" is positively tame in comparison to some stuff that gets posted on Dakka.

As for the problem of cheaper labour undercutting the domestic one, there are ways around it but it involves more powerful unions than I think you'd accept. There's an ongoing process in the EU already to stop this problem. In 2014 reforms regarding the rules regulating the purchase of public services in order to allow governments to place stricter demands on companies competing for government contracts, for instance. Reform is happening, but a minimum wage-system is not very good at combatting wage dumping. That, however, is once again a domestic problem being blamed on the EU. I've said it before, but at least Brexit is going to end passing the buck onto the EU for your own mistakes.

On the subject of the fisheries, you had the chairman post of the fisheries commission and elected Nigel Farage, who promptly never showed up. You didn't even try, you just threw your hands in the air and expected someone else to work it out, just like you're now throwing your hands in the air and expecting the EU to work Brexit out when you don't even know what you want yourselves.

This is one of those rare occasions when I'm in complete agreement with AlmightyWalrus.

I've never been called a racist on these threads, and at any rate, the mods would have done something about it had it been the case, which it's not.

A lot of people strongly support the EU, and though I disagree with them, I respect that view.

As I've said before, dakka is one of the few places where we can have reasoned debate on Brexit. Some newspaper forums are pure poison (by both sides) and are best avoided.

@ Stranger83

The thing you seem to be missing, the core argument of most Remainers AFAIK, is that none of those things are going to be solved by leaving the EU.

Our government(s) chose not to introduce decent minimum wage requirements. Nothing to do with the EU.

Our government(s) chose not to use the full means, allowable under EU regulations, to protect local industries. Nothing to do with the EU.

Our government(s) chose not to invest in local industry and infrastructure, assuming that "the free market" would do it for them. Nothing to do with the EU.

All leaving is doing is massively pissing off our closest allies and trading partners and shooting our economy in the foot. And when there is less money to go around, how can you expect there to be higher wages for your friend Dave?

Exactly; I have every sympathy for your friends and want a solution, but I don't believe leaving the EU and giving the Tories free reign is the way to do it.

We're still going to have economic migrants, but also a government that wants to reduce standards, safety nets and wages in order to blue competitive, with no supervision.

What if the foreigners all leave and dave clean go back to charging £12 an hour, but now needs to pay £200 a month for health insurance? Or the government drops the minimum wage so he's competing with locals who live at home and don't pay rent?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's very hard for established tradesmen to stay afloat now since so many are out of work (poor economy) and/or willing to work cash in hand and not pay tax. I'm sure with minimal effort I could get any domestic work done without having to pay VAT. Not that I would though.

What your friends need is a genuinely strong and stable economy which is being managed by competent leaders, and Brexit is likely to only do the opposite?

jouso wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:

Firstly I misunderstood your earlier post as to the discrimination, you were talking about the Irish situation when I was referring to the ECJ. But shooting someone in the US is justifiable under SYG, the assertion that ECJ has primacy over the UK laws is the assertion that a US citizen could shoot a Spaniard (I'm not picking on the Spanish honestly!) and claim that he is subject only to US laws and so walk free. I cannot accept the primacy of a foreign court over our own laws. Which is one of the EUs demands.

That is misrepresenting the position quite a bit. ECJ would only would have to rule on cases of pre-acquired rights. That is those who are already living in the UK pre-Brexit so it would be relative to rights acquired under the ECJ jurisdiction.

So it's not a case of transfering laws to another country, it's not taking away rights from those who had them at some point.

I don't think its that far a stretch. And you haven't actually refuted the point, whether its one person or a thousand, The EU is demanding (this may be too strong a word but,) that persons living in the UK be subject to the rights granted under the ECJ and not UK law. And that is a case of imposing your laws onto another country. Every time you visit a foreign country you divest yourself of any rights given to you and subject yourself to the host countries laws until such time as you return home.

I don't see that as a problem. ECJ should have no remit in the UK after the cut-off date in 2019.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:

jouso wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:

Firstly I misunderstood your earlier post as to the discrimination, you were talking about the Irish situation when I was referring to the ECJ. But shooting someone in the US is justifiable under SYG, the assertion that ECJ has primacy over the UK laws is the assertion that a US citizen could shoot a Spaniard (I'm not picking on the Spanish honestly!) and claim that he is subject only to US laws and so walk free. I cannot accept the primacy of a foreign court over our own laws. Which is one of the EUs demands.

That is misrepresenting the position quite a bit. ECJ would only would have to rule on cases of pre-acquired rights. That is those who are already living in the UK pre-Brexit so it would be relative to rights acquired under the ECJ jurisdiction.

So it's not a case of transfering laws to another country, it's not taking away rights from those who had them at some point.

I don't think its that far a stretch. And you haven't actually refuted the point, whether its one person or a thousand, The EU is demanding (this may be too strong a word but,) that persons living in the UK be subject to the rights granted under the ECJ and not UK law. And that is a case of imposing your laws onto another country. Every time you visit a foreign country you divest yourself of any rights given to you and subject yourself to the host countries laws until such time as you return home.

Except by the time those people moved there it wasn't a foreign legal jurisdiction. It was part of the EU, bound by EU laws, of which the highest court was the ECJ.

Ex post facto is frowned upon in Western law for a reason. That's why there's usually grandfathering clauses to cover them and would just be a relatively straightforward example.

Post Facto has nothing to do with it as the removal of the ECJ isnt making anyone a criminal, nor is it being back dated. From X day forward those laws simply dont apply unless ratified by the UK court system.

 AndrewC wrote:
Post Facto has nothing to do with it as the removal of the ECJ isnt making anyone a criminal, nor is it being back dated.

Post Facto is not limited to criminal cases. Right now an EU citizen has legal recourse for labour and residency matters up to the highest legal court in the UK, then finally the ECJ.

After Brexit, they will lose that last rung of appeal, so it is indeed a loss of rights ex post facto.

And another thing, I'm glad my tax money, and billions more, is getting spent on Trident. That'll deter the North Koreans from trying to get their hands on nukes

Seriously, that line of justification was one of the arguments that was sold to the British public ahead of Trident renewal.

Like most other things in the UK, it turned out to be a steaming pile of horsegak.

Logically, if nuclear weapons deter aggression, then everybody should have them, including the North Koreans...

We're on the road to madness here

And post facto only refers to laws enacted now that take effect from a date in the past. (Sorry about the crime reference, I blame the source material).

The effective date of this change is in the future.

So the assertion your making, ie loss of previous rights isnt a post facto decision.

The way I understood the suggestion it was that any disputes that arise based on something that happened while the UK was still an EU member would be covered by the ECJ even if the complaint is made after the UK leaves the EU. As such it'd be an ex post facto situation since it'd remove legal protection that someone had when the crime occured. I've not paid too much attention to this particular issue though, so I could be mistaken.

As I understood it the application of ECJ applies to any EU citizen working or living in the UK in perpertuity. However quite willing to be shown otherwise.

Stranger83 wrote:
I haven't read the last lot of posts, as frankly I'm fed up of the bile and hatred – I didn't believe nasty remainers really existed anymore, who just bleieve that anyone who voted leave is evil but thank you for proving me wrong. I could do without you in my life so I'll leave you to wollow in your pit of nastiness and believe that you are the pillar of goodness and virtue.

I am however going to tell you a story – every element of this story is true, although it's actually an amalgamation of what happened to three different people I personally know.

This story will explain to you why we leavers are opposed to the concept of 'free movement' and show that it has nothing at all to do with "RACIST", that none of you know anyone who has been affected this way by free movement says a lot about the social circles that you move in, you spend a lot of time talking about the poor and working class but I wonder if any of you have ever spoken to one of them?

Spoiler:

Anyway, I'm going to post this then walk away – you can make up your own mind if I'm evil and a racist for not liking free movement afterwards, but I'm done with the nasty politics you try promote here.


I'm going to introduce you to Dave. Dave is a good guy, always tries to do the right thing and has no ill will to anyone. Dave was never very good at school, leaving after his GCSEs and failing to get a single subject higher than a D grade. Dave however had a single redeem skill that he know he could use to support himself – Dave was a magician with a piece of wood, he could take a plank of wood and turn it into anything you could imagine.

So, doing what was done at the time Dave left school at 16 and took an apprenticeship as a joiner. After a couple of years Dave was taken on as a full time work and over the next 10 years gradually branched out to be self employed.

Over the same 10 years Dave met his wife, had a couple of kids and everything was going smoothly, he was happy, business was doing well and he was supporting his family.

Now Dave didn't want a fancy life, but to live and support his family in the UK he needed to earn a minimum of £10 per hour, but being that humans like to do more than just live he used to charge £12 per hour – which was a reasonable rate and fairly average for the area he lived in.

Then the EU opened up membership to economies that were significantly less developed than the UK.

What then proceeded to happen is this, Dave suddenly noticed that Paul, George and Bob had all moved to the area from Eastern Europe. Paul was an electrician, George was a plumber and Bob was a joiner. They immediately started to do work at £8 per hour.

How could they charge £8 per hour? Well here is how it works. Their families stay in Eastern Europe and Paul, George and Bob send the money home. As the cost of living in Easter Europe is significantly cheaper than the UK they only need to earn £3 per hour to cover this. "Ah but Paul, George and Bob are all living in the UK" I hear you say, and this is true, but they pool their resources, rent together and can survive in the UK for £2 per hour each. This means that they only need £5 per hour to support themselves, and they are saving the remaining £3 for when they go home – which they plan to do after 1 or 2 years.

Now Dave has a problem, he is being massively undercut on his trade, he could charge the same as Bob, but then he wouldn't earn enough to support his family? What is he supposed to do?

Dave make a tough choice, he knows that Bob isn't planning to be away from his family forever, so he decided to lower his rates to the minimum he can afford and support his family. He charges £10 per hour, and just accepts that until Bob goes home he'll be unable to have a family holiday or but his kids the latest games console – it's not an idea situation but it'll do. He's fairly confident that his reputation in the area will mean he can still get enough work at £10 per hour.

Now Dave faces trouble on all counts, if he tries to explain why his rates are higher than Bobs he's simply told to 'lower his rates then' – people just don't understand why Bob can offer this cheaper than Dave. If he complains he is branded a "RACIST" and told that these people are just trying to work and they are good for the economy. Dave has no ill will towards Bob, he's just trying to provide for his family and he cannot do that on £8 per hour

Lowering his rate to £10 works a little for Dave, he loses some work but he is able to scrape by and has a miserable couple of years, but then he begins to hear the Paul, George and Bob are going home. This is good news because the cost of living in the UK is rising faster than the cost of living in Eastern Europe and the disparity between what he can charge and what Bob can charge is only going to get larger – but this isn't the end of his nightmare, because as Paul, George and Bob leave then Peter, Shane and Trevor all come over from Eastern Europe and the cycle starts again, except now people are more accepting of accepting the work from the Eastern Europeans as Bob has set their expectations that the work can be just as well as he can.

Dave clings on as best he can, but ultimately he has no choice to close his business, he is now unemployed and without any qualification is unlikely to find work again.


So what has happened to my three friends who would recognise this story immediately? Well, one of them in an ironic twist now works in Poland, where finacially he does fairly well as all the electricians have left to Western Europe. He's miserable however as he has only picked up a little bit of Polish and has constant arguments with hos wife who is desperate to return to her friends and family in the UK, but he simply cannot support them there.

One friend has managed to find work stacking shelves in a supermarket – but he earns a fraction of what he used to earn, his wife has had no choice but to also seek work, despite the fact that it had been her wish to be a stay at home mum. Both hate their jobs.

One is still unemployed and on benefits, whilst he finds temporary work when he can his lack of qualifications and advancing age (he's older than 40) means it's unlikely he'll ever find work again – he is massively depressed and ended up splitting up from his wife.

Do any of them have ill will to the people who came over and forced them out of work, not really. They understand that these people are just trying to support their family in the same way they tried to support theirs. What they hate is the system that allows this to happen, it's why I hate the system that allows this to happen and why I do not like EU style free movement.

I'd have no problem with Paul, George or Bob coming to this country, they can come sight see and travel all they want (this is free movement in the truest sense of the word). I even wouldn't mind them coming to work in the UK if it was a level playing field - which would mean them bringing their family with them (and something we could control and make a condition of any visas we choose to issue), but the current system is unfair and I think it needs to end.

I think if you actually stopped yelling "RACIST" at leavers and assuming they are the devil incarnate you would find that the vast majority would be able to tell you a very similar story.

 AndrewC wrote:


Before I comment on this, can you point me to any documentation relating to these POs, before attempting to refute first research!!

Cheers

Andrew

Found some reading on the POs and no I do not agree that the UK Govt is primarily responsible for the lions share going to foreign POs. A lot of the problem goes back to the original decisions which gutted the fishing fleet of smaller vessels, due to regulation and cost effectiveness which saw the UK fleets halved in size. However subsidies supporting the smaller vessels continued unchecked overseas which allowed other countries to maintain their fleet. When the EU came out with directives that the smaller ships be allocated a greater proportion of the quota, british vessels simply didn't exist to take advantage of it, but other EU countries were and so a lot of the stock then went to overseas POs. And the ability of those fleets to monopolise the industry while withholding quota from smaller operators isn't fair or right. And as far as I can see, ensuring that quotas are only given to UK fishing POs runs foul of EU rules on state aid. So as a direct result of EU rules the Government had to go the big business route. Now I am not denying that the governments at the various times may have went the same route, but the rules guided them in that direction.

Whether the withdrawl from the common fisheries would have achieved the same result as brexit, we will never know as that decision was superceded by the referendum.

This seems quite comprehensive but I can't argue for how it stacks up against other research, though to be fair it's a fair few years old now (2001).

https://researchportal.port.ac.uk/portal/files/209524/FAO_411.pdf

I do acknowledge the issue with regards fishing subsidies. However that in itself was not an EU issue. Unlike the Common Agricultural Policy (which I whole heartedly oppose) it was up to the individual member states in the EU to determine whether they provided subsidies or not. The UK decided not to, other countries decided to. The EU started stepping in when it realised that it is was skewing fishing in Europe and making things anti-competitive between countries. Hence it was solely a UK decision not to subsidise individual vessels and favour POs as a way to make UK fish more competitive. So who is to blame the UK for not supporting the small fleets or the EU for not legislating against subsidies. Ironically if the EU had stepped in at the beginning people might now have been accusing the EU of too much red tape and blocking governments making their own decisions. For some people in the Brexit argument it would be an example of Brussels taking over, on the other hand by stopping subsidies it would have made the whole fishing issue more balanced across countries.

My personal view is that there should be no subsidies. Not only in some cases they have been shown to be illegal, but they also hold back third world countries. It is not lost on me that one of the reasons that there are large numbers of people that want to come to western, rich, nations is because the rock they were born on is poor (with places where you have to walk 10 miles just for clean water). These same countries however deliberately try and protect their own place in the world and hence keep those countries that are poor, to remain so. Hence our own western monopolies on wealth in fact to an extent drives immigration. If the western world took a different view that being less protective of its position of wealth might reduce their overall influence relatively but provide better wealthier partners to do business with. Basically as it stands western countries take a large piece of a small pie. The alternative, better solution would be to take a smaller piece of a much larger pie. Not only do all humans benefit (in the long term) but the immigration drivers that a lot of people oppose would be vastly reduced.

 r_squared wrote:

As to hate and bile, have a real look through the last 5 or so pages and you'll see that the insults and haranguing have been coming from one direction to the other,

Soo....

steve steveson wrote:Leave campaigners are still screaming "nasty EU!" over anyone who questions them or asks for workable ideas...

wasn't even vaguely insulting at all? And when I attempted to point that out in a somewhat droll nerd-culture related fashion(you know being on a site about toy soldiers and all), your only thoughts were:-

r_squared wrote:But its nice to see the leave side reduced to weak "hivemind/gollum" memes and insults as their arguments, and reality are stripped away.

I mean, come on guv. 'One direction' indeed.


The funny thing is, I'd argue more with people who post crap arguments for leaving the EU in here (there are plenty), but the thing is, the 'Remain' team tend to have that stitched it up. Which is great, because I'd be here all day if I was trying to debunk both sides of the field. From where I sit, the 'Leavers' tend to have far more subjective and anecdotal arguments as compared to the better grasp on the statistics and facts on the 'Remainers'. When it comes to less than subtle derogatory and condescending quips though, the weighting is very much the other way around.

I do really hate the split into Team 'Leave' and Team 'Remain' though, because it leads to crap generalisations, and an 'us' and 'them' mentality that really isn't justified. I'm in the same camp as many people who bat for 'Remain' on many issues, I only voted differently because I have a mildly different opinion on some specific points. But because they see me occasionally pull down a bad 'Remain' argument or point out something crap the EU did, I'm automatically slotted into the 'enemy' camp to be fought to the death on everything. Worst of all, I end up mentally starting to draw those lines too despite doing my best not to, because that's how human psychology works.

I mean, crikey, take that daft attempt by the EU to impose the ECJ post-Brexit. I know it's way beyond the norm, every international news agency who covered it points out the unprecedented degree to which is does infringe upon an independent state, factually, it's pretty clear that there's little justification for it. But when I point that out, I'm immediately confronted by people contorting into knots trying to devise a way in which it is. That's because it's just devolved into this thing where whenever a 'Leaver' tries to point out anything remotely negative about the EU or its actions, it's perceived as the battlefield being set up and the knights have to move into position on both sides.

It goes the other way too, but the fact that 'Team Remain' has a better grasp of the facts and figures means that the quantity of holes in arguments is smaller, and you need to vaguely know your stuff to argue with it. Which unfortunately, a lot of 'Leavers' can't do. So they just end up feeling browbeaten and condescended to, which isn't helped by the somewhat patronising tone 'Team Remain' tends to adopt (usually exacerbated by several pithy generalisations about Leavers such as that demonstrated by Mr Steveson above).

So I tend to weigh in far more on the 'Leave' side of arguments, because there's no need to add the twenty sixth shot to an animal(or argument) long since dying, but someone should probably point out when the EU and co. are up to no good. Which they frequently are, on account of the fact that they're a bunch of smegging politicians, half of which are always up to something.


I don't know. I guess I'm a little bit sick of both sides, and above all, feeling like I'm being forced into a 'side'. Now that I'm done making everyone on both sides of the fence hacked off at me, I think I might just call it a day altogether on discussing anything to do with Brexit until negotiations are done. Every argument just goes the same way, and it's long since gotten old.

'Two households, both alike in dignity,
In fair Britain, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.'

I get the feeling here Whirlwind that you should be mad at the world governments rather than aiming solely at the UK.

I get disillusioned at the amount of spite directed at the UK Govt for failing at this entire process when tbh its a cockup of gigantic proportions orchestrated by both parties. The EU is a monolithic organisation where it often working at cross purpose. Afaicr there has not been a set of audited accounts for the last 15 to 20 years, and asking for an unspecified sum based on cigarette packet calculations was never going to fly. And yes for many years successive governments here have passed the buck and quietly signed away our sovereignty without consulting the electorate.

In fact it may be a sign of that disillusionment that the last politician I truly respected was Maggie Thatcher. I'm Scottish and you know what a reputation she had up here. Like her or loath her she did exactly what was said on the tin.

Globalisation (if that's the word) will never work until such time an external force threatens us all. To much nationalism exists, and you will never get rid of it, so deriding someone for that trait...well you may as well spit in the rain for all the good it will do.

Cheers

Andrew